Natural Born Citizen Not Same as Natural Born Subject

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44441770/Constitutional-Article-II-Natural-Born-Citizen-Not-Same-as-English-Common-Law-Natural-Born-Subject ^ | May 19, 2010 | Mario Apuzzo

[STE=Q]

In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of therevolutionary and post-revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen andassigned sovereignty to the people. The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, [2 U.S. (2 Dall.)419 (1793)the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789: [T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State . . . .[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among usmay be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. . . . Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. [Id. 471-72 (Jay, C.J.)].

[STE=Q]

Ping!

STE=Q

[Gondring]

Nor is it the same as native-born.

[RWGinger]

The apparent new 0dumbo spin is that a natural born citizen is one who is born in USA versus a naturalized citizen
BUT I do not think there was status called naturalized citizen in 1789.

No Dem has evern had a good explanation for why only the POTUS must be ‘ natural born” as proscribed by our Constitution.

[DoctorBulldog]

If King Obama has his way, we’ll be re-classified as Natural Born ‘Subjects’.

Cheers

[Hotlanta Mike]

Doubting Donald? Now Trump wonders about Obama eligibility
Tells ABC: ‘The reason is because he grew up and nobody knew him’

Read more: Doubting Donald? Now Trump wonders about Obama eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276269#ixzz1GtPVnY26

[Sherman Logan]

The problem with this article is that while it recognizes that the Supreme Court, a great many moons ago, long before PC ruled the land, held that the two terms are indeed more or less the same, the author disagrees.

So for his issue to become effective law the Court would have to reverse itself on a precedent that has stood more or less unchallenged for well over 100 years. For obvious reasons, this ain’t likely to happen.

[STE=Q]

If King Obama has his way, we’ll be re-classified as Natural Born ‘Subjects’.

I'm laughing, but in the bizarro world of Obazo you are most likely right!

STE=Q

[ViLaLuz]

I don’t know where Soetoro was born but I suspect he is a dual citizen—country of birth/Indonesia—which would disqualify him from the presidency. This needs to be settled in court. We also need to get to the bottom of why he uses multiple Social Security numbers.

[Notwithstanding]

Would someone please make 2 lists:

A. all the LEGITimate reasons that one would use more than one SSN

B. all the ILLEGITimate reasons that one would use more than one SSN

[bushpilot1]

Subjects are a conquered people living in the city or country of the conqueror..

[Scanian]

This could also present problems for Marco Rubio if he has any presidential ambitions.

We need to know if his parents had or had not become US citizens by May, 1971.

It concerns me that I haven’t been able to find that information anywhere.

According to the Castro regime, Marco is a Cuban(dual) citizen because his parents did not have the right to renounce Cuban citizenship under Cuban law and their children would therefore be Cuban citizens regardless of US birth.

If the Rubio’s remained Cuban citizens at the time of Marco’s birth, then he is disqualified from the US presidency and Rush and others should forget about him as a potential candidate.

We need to be as strict about our own people as we are about the ‘Rats.

As for the Castro regime and their rules? Que se vayan al carajo!

[CommieCutter]

Nobody knew him and he can’t seem to name a single favorite player from his supposedly childhood favorite MLB team.

[STE=Q]

The problem with this article is that while it recognizes that the Supreme Court, a great many moons ago, long before PC ruled the land, held that the two terms are indeed more or less the same, the author disagrees.

---

I assume you are referring to this statement, by Apuzzo(in brackets):

{”I submit that both Wong Kim Ark and Obama’s supporters are wrong in concluding that a ‘natural born Citizen’ is the same thing as an English common law ‘natural born subject’.”}

The problem is that the decision in Wong Kim Ark NEVER said Wong was a Natural Born Citizen.

I believe it said that Wong had all the same “rights” that a Natural Born Citizen has.

This is true.

So do naturalized citizens have ALL the rights of a Natural Born Citizen; however, naturalized citizens can’t hold the executive office of President Of The United States.

My understanding is that Wong was deemed a citizen (under the 14th amendment) but that the court never said he was a Natural Born Citizen, nor did it confer same on him.

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

If the Rubio’s remained Cuban citizens at the time of Marco’s birth, then he is disqualified from the US presidency and Rush and others should forget about him as a potential candidate.

Not correct!

The ONLY requirment is that Rubio’s parents were BOTH US citizens (naruralized is OK) AT THE TIME of his (Rubio’s) birth.

If so, then he is a Natural Born Citizen!

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

“According to the Castro regime, Marco is a Cuban(dual) citizen because his parents did not have the right to renounce Cuban citizenship under Cuban law and their children would therefore be Cuban citizens regardless of US birth.”

---

Doesn’t matter what the Castro regime says, if his parents were both AMERICAN citizens when he was born he is a Natural born Citizen.

If they were not AMERICAN citizens, then he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

STE=Q

[Gondring]

The apparent new [...]

New? What's new about that part of our Constitution? And what's new about the idea that those citizens who aren't Natural Born have to be Naturalized? I don't think the dichotomy is very difficult to see.

BUT I do not think there was status called naturalized citizen in 1789.

"Naturalized" is from centuries before the Constitution.

No Dem has evern had a good explanation for why only the POTUS must be ‘ natural born” as proscribed by our Constitution.

You mean "prescribed," and for the answer, ask John Jay why he didn't include the Congress or Judiciary in his letter to George Washington.

[Sherman Logan]

Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,

if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,

and saying that such a child "was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354."

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

19 How. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

[Munz]

Thanks for posting

[ViLaLuz]

There is no legitimate reason to have more than one SSN. By law yYou can only have one.